Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Jain And Anr. vs National Law University Delhi And ... on 28 February, 2020
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28th February, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 12533/2019
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Misbahul Haque, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha and Mr. S.D.
Sharma, Advs. for respondent no. 1
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 28.02.2020
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred with
the following prayers:
"1. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or the appropriate Writ
directing the Respondent No. 2 to vacate the office of the
Registrar, NLUD.
2. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or the appropriate Writ
thereby quashing the illegal appointment of Respondent No. 2
as Professor w.e.f. 2011-12 & further regularised in November,
2013 at the NLUD.
3. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or the appropriate Writ
directing the Respondent No.3 to show-cause by what authority
he appointed Respondent No. 2 as the Professor and later the
Registrar of NLUD;
4. To issue a Writ of Prohibition or the appropriate Writ
directing the Respondent No. 4 to stop using the degree of
LL.M. for any purpose whatsoever and in any manner
howsoever from the date of issue of such writ;
5. To issue an appropriate Writ to cancel the admission of
Respondent No.4 to 2019 Batch of the Ph.D degree course of
the University.
6. To issue a Writ Mandamus directing the University to take
disciplinary actions against the Respondent No. 2 and 3 for
blatant abuse of powers;
7. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or the appropriate Writ
thereby quashing the illegal appointment of Respondent No. 5
at the NLUD.
8. To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the University to take
admissions through an independent agency like that of the
CLAT Consortium or any other independent agency, which this
court deems fit; to rule out any manipulation in future and
maintain transparency in the system;
9. To, impose such costs as the Respondent No. 2 might have
gained by virtue of the Office to which he was illegally
appointed on both the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3
since appointment in 2011, with retrospective effect;
10. To pass such other or further orders as this court may deem
fit to meet the ends of justice and equity."
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there are allegations of
the petitioners upon respondent no. 2 that he does not possess the requisite
qualifications for the post of Registrar. Counsel appearing for respondent
no. 1 submits that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed, paragraph 9
whereof talks about the requisite qualifications for the post of Professor of
Law because Registrar ought to possess the qualifications of Professor of
Law.
3. For the ready reference, qualifications for the post of Professor of Law
reads as under:
"4.1.0 PROFESSOR
A. (i) An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in the
concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high
quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published
work with a minimum of 10 publication as books and/or
research/policy papers.
(ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in
university/college, and/or experience in research at the
University/National Level Institutions/industries, including
experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level.
(iii) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new
curricula and courses, and technology -- mediated teaching
learning process
(iv) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic,
performance indicator (API) based performance-based
appraisal system (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Appendix
III.
OR
B. An outstanding professional, with established reputation
in the relevant field, who has made significant contributions to
the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, to be
substantiated by credentials."
4. Looking to the aforesaid counter affidavit and in view of the public
advertisement for the post of Professor of Law, it appears that respondent no.
2 was initially appointed as Professor of Law on ad hoc basis with effect
from 12th November, 2013 and thereafter, as Registrar with effect from 26th
August, 2014.
5. Looking to the qualifications, the respondent no. 2 is possessing the
requisite qualifications for the post of Professor in Law for the respondent
no. 1/University. Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that
the prescribed procedure in the appointment of the Registrar is not properly
followed by the respondent no. 1. He has also raised objection against the
improper selection of the respondent no. 2. It is further submitted by the
counsel for the petitioners that earlier, respondent no. 2 was removed from
the National Law University, Bhopal. In a writ of quo warranto, if
respondent no. 2 is found to have qualifications for the post of Professor of
Law, the writ of quo warranto cannot be issued. An argument that
respondent no. 2 ought not to have been selected, cannot be decided in
Public Interest Litigation. In such eventuality, proceedings can be preferred
in accordance with law before appropriate court.
6. Looking to the facts of the present case, it appears that respondent no.
2 is duly qualified for the appointment on the post of Professor of Law and
subsequently, as Registrar.
7. In view of the affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 and also looking to
the Annexures annexed therewith, it cannot be said that respondent no. 2 is
not qualified for the aforesaid posts. On the contrary, respondent no. 2 is
duly qualified for appointment on the posts of Professor in Law and
Registrar. But counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the
appointments made by the respondent no. 2 are also illegal. For this
allegation, the petitioners are always having a remedy to challenge the
appointments before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
8. Hence, there is no substance in this writ petition. With these
observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
FEBRUARY 28, 2020
r.bararia
